The U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions on Eritrea in December 2009 “for its role in aiding rebels (thought to be affiliated with international terrorist groups)  in Somalia and refusing to withdraw from a ‘disputed border’ with Djibouti.” Months before the approval of the sanctions, there have been various, much publicized warnings by the international body, albeit ignored by the Eritrean Government.

Why do you think the Eritrean government is now engaged in a ferocious campaign in condemning it while has done little to prevent it? Will it change anything?

Is it plausible for an illegitimate government, which among other things, has refused to implement the country’s constitution, be a judge on what are legal and illegal or just and unjust measures?

Many Eritreans in the opposition or the so called ‘silent majority’ favor the sanctions, not necessarily accepting the reasons outlined by the UNSC outrightly, but as an opportunity to weaken the regime which has condemned and terrorized its own people. However, many are also heading to Geneva and New York to demonstrate in support of the government, which doesn’t even know what demonstration means, let alone allowing it inside Eritrea.

Is it politically and morally correct for Diaspora Eritreans to stand by the government that chased them away from their homeland or refused them to return back, at the expense of the western governments, which gave them refuge and safety believing that they are victims of the regime?

What do the Eritrean opposition and civic organizations need do about this situation? Do they have to draw a line, and name and shame the people involved; or go beyond that as some have been threatening? Could this kind of approach really serve their cause for democratic change? In doing so, are they playing into the hands of the regime which employs ‘divide and rule’ as its strategy to stay in power?

Have your say !

{jcomments lock}